R
ribozyme
Guest
Hmm… I know atheists who don’t go around killing people unlike some religious fundamentalists.
- Status
N
Nullasalus
Guest
But then, why is that evil if you buy into the atheist/materialist concept?
R
ribozyme
Guest
I’ll say quite glibly because it harms human beings.
Without God to define morality, why would any killing be wrong?
After all, without a higher authority dictating morality, then we become our own highest moral authority.
With everyone dictating their own morality, no action undertaken by anyone can be evil. Merely wrong to some people at some time.
That is one thing I have always found funny about ‘atheists.’
They all at one point or another claim belief in God causes evil; but they all seem to forget that their very acknowledgement of evil means that there must be a God from which to define evil.
N
Nullasalus
Guest
Of course. But really, what does that matter? I mean, I know how it matters from the perspective of the Church (and those of many theists) - why it should matter to an atheist who asserts that there is no point to or ultimate intention behind existence and reality, I’ve never figured out.
Though vz71 seems to be making the same point, so I’ll bow out of this for now. We’re already conversing in another thread.
Then you are the dictator of morality???
Wow. Such a high rank. I feel honored that you would come down to talk to us commoners.
M
mlchance
Guest
Does avoiding the problem of evil explain evil or make evil go away? Psychologically speaking, avoiding problems is often not a very healthy way of dealing with them. Sounds like just more wishful thinking to me.
I know a few religious fundamentalists, and none of them kill people. I know a few atheists, and none of them kill people. I also know that up to 100 million were killed in the 20th century by atheistic regimes. All of this demonstrates what?
BTW, how is that you expect anyone to believe a scientific proposal eliminates the need for God when science cannot confirm or disconfirm God’s existence?
– Mark L. Chance.
R
ribozyme
Guest
So why isn’t the moral idea of minimizing suffering generate a moral foundation. Of course, I am refering to Utilitarianism.
Will you say that if Peter Singer posted in this forum?
W
wjp984
Guest
If you think about it, it is absolutely amazing how ingenious God is in requireing faith and ensureing that will always be the case. I am taking a class on the cosmos and how the Big Bang created everything and how you can supposedly get something from nothing. Due to the fact that the total energy of the universe is 0 you don’t need anything at all to get what we have now since it is still a net 0. Therefore, it is argued that you don’t need God to create our universe. However, God, being all knowing created us knowing the human mind would evenually be able to grasp the cosmos and understand it. With our technology God had to create the universe in a way where no matter how hard we try there is no way to prove he is responsible for it therefore always requireing faith. It kind of would be pointless if we went off into space and realized there was some supernatural force involved therefore proving the existence of God.
It Can. But because it is merely humanity defining what does and does not minimize suffering, and cannot have any more authority then another human making their own decisions.
Consider abortion. It is evil. But for a very long time (and still today) a great many people considered it a decision that would minimize suffering.
Does the flawed view of so many dictate morality?
Sure, why not. Do you plan on inviting him here?
M
mlchance
Guest
You seem to be getting increasingly incoherent.
Does avoiding the problem of evil explain evil or make evil go away?
How is that you expect anyone to believe a scientific proposal eliminates the need for God when science cannot confirm or disconfirm God’s existence?
– Mark L. Chance.
R
ribozyme
Guest
I didn’t say that science will *always * be incapable of confirming or disconfirming God’s existence. I think that Turok and Steinhardt’s prosposal will eliminate the need for God’s role as creator of the universe, but it does not disprove that God does not exist.
Does avoiding the problem of evil explain evil or make evil go away?
How is that you expect anyone to believe a scientific proposal eliminates the need for God when science cannot confirm or disconfirm God’s existence?
– Mark L. Chance.
No, it does not make evil disappear, but at least we do not have to explain why a benevolent God will allow the existence of evil.
R
ribozyme
Guest
I didn’t say that science will *always * be incapable of confirming or disconfirming God’s existence. I think that Turok and Steinhardt’s prosposal will eliminate the need for God’s role as creator of the universe if it is correct, but it does not disprove that God does not exist.
No, it does not make evil disappear, but at least we do not have to explain why a benevolent God will allow the existence of evil
Sorry about the double post
I meant to edit.
No, it does not make evil disappear, but at least we do not have to explain why a benevolent God will allow the existence of evil
Sorry about the double post
I meant to edit.Allowing people free will opens the door to evil.
To disallow the existence of evil would deny free will.
I am uncertain why this would be a problem.
R
ribozyme
Guest
Nope, not all evil is caused by free will. Since I am precluded to post grotesque pictures on this forum, you should see this post: I am not Principia: iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3734525#post3734525.
I am warning you that you will be disgusted by seeing these pictures, but you have to explain why would a benevolent God allow such instances of human suffering. (Well, I do not think the first picture is about human suffering, but why didn’t God heal that fetus?)
Your going to have to point out the evil here, I do not see it.
Suffering perhaps, but not evil.
Do you equate suffering with evil?
If so, you are mistaken, they are not the same.
Your arguments are not supported.
R
ribozyme
Guest
So why didn’t God heal the fetus if He loved it so much? Why did he let it be born malformed so it that is die shortly after birth (assuming it will be alive then)? Doesn’t God want to allow that baby a chance to know Him in the baby’s life. Why doesn’t he intervene to stop the Indian Ocean Tsunami. He could have easily stopped such events? To me, these events illustrate that God does not care about humanity.
You haven’t answered the question.
R
ribozyme
Guest
How are they not the same? Tell me how the baby with anencephaly not an example of evil. I do evil and suffering are the same though.
B
buffalo
Guest
One thing to consider. The soul of that baby. God loves the soul and the body. We see the human aspect of this babies suffering, but how do we really know if the soul is somehow embraced by God. We often forget about the soul.
The soul is immortal and in the end the soul is what is important.
The soul’s journey here on earth is one of testing free will, purification through suffering and knowing, loving and serving God so that we may be with Him forever.
- Status